Severe Accusations Require Hard Questions and Careful Research.
None of That is Evident In a Story That Libeled
By Sherry Harris
When I left city politics and returned to private life more than 20 years ago I dedicated myself to building my engineering firm and focused myself on empowering others to realize their life’s full potential through conscious, spiritual living and mindfulness practices.
To be publicly defamed and falsely accused of a criminal act by someone who briefly worked in my city council office has caused me to respond to libelous statements made by Dorinda Henry in The Seattle Times.I always treated my staff with respect and propriety.
Ms. Henry was a one-day-per-week intern in my office in 1995. Her position was a temporary, three-month internship. Her brief time was marked by troubling job performance issues which included divisive behavior towards constituents and staff. She was frequently offensive towards constituents, and I was receiving many complaints. I decided to terminate her employment early.
Ms. Henry’s right to due process was recognized by both independent city investigations. Ms. Henry was fired from two different positions at the City of Seattle and each time she filed a discrimination claim in retaliation.
Part of the decision to terminate Ms. Henry followed threats she made to Seattle Municipal Court officials, calling herself my aide — she was not — and falsely claiming that my office was conducting an investigation of the court’s hiring practices. When the presiding judge came to me to complain, I learned Ms. Henry was seeking retribution for being fired from her previous position working for the Seattle Municipal Court. Before starting her internship in my office, Ms. Henry had filed a discrimination claim against the judge she worked for. It was administratively investigated and found to have no merit.
After early termination of her internship with my office, Ms. Henry was furious. She threatened to file a sexual harassment and discrimination claim against me with Seattle’s Ethics and Election Commission. The Commission’s weeks-long independent investigation, which involved interviewing dozens of people in two states, concluded there was no factual basis to Ms. Henry’s claims. Her termination, for cause, was upheld.
Ms. Henry’s right to due process was recognized by both independent city investigations. Ms. Henry was fired from two different positions at the City of Seattle and each time she filed a discrimination claim in retaliation.
The Commission’s weeks-long independent investigation, which involved interviewing dozens of people in two states, concluded there was no factual basis to Ms. Henry’s claims. Her termination, for cause, was upheld.
Now 23 years later, in 2018, Ms. Henry was quoted at length in the Seattle Times and contends she was the victim of sexual assault – falsely, and without evidence, naming me as her alleged attacker. Had Ms. Henry in 1995 reported sexual assault, this would have triggered a criminal investigation by the Seattle Police Department. It is not credible that she would have made an official report of sexual harassment but neglected to report sexual assault if anything of the kind had occurred.
The escalation of Ms. Henry’s claim from harassment to sexual assault should compel a critical examination of facts, rather than a reporter’s acceptance at face value. Ms. Henry’s displays of grandiosity, such as claiming that she might have beaten Barack Obama to the White House if not for being fired from a temporary internship should compel outright suspicion of her veracity.
I would have hoped that the Seattle Times would have been less gullible and careless in their reporting and editing process, and more willing to seriously and critically examine Ms. Henry’s pattern of making false accusations, which are documented in their own archives.
Rape is terrible crime. So is lying about it.